3 ms·
Yes, but in order to actually explain the results of existing experiments superdeterministically, this "implicate" order must be vast. It has to link the result
by knzhou 7y ago
Yes, but in order to actually explain the results of existing experiments superdeterministically, this "implicate" order must be vast. It has to link the results of spin measurements, coin flips, radioactive decays halfway across the world, and the twinkling of the light from a long-dead star, all of which are sources of apparent randomness used together in experiments. All of this has to work in concert.
If that really is the right way to think about the world, then absolutely nothing of science can survive. There is no such thing as a controlled experiment.
- ganzuul 7y agoNaively, superconductivity could serve as a partially closed system for experiments in this theory.
- jcranberry 7y agononsense, that's saying that no kind of science based on probabilities could survive because it's difficult to run a deterministic experiment. if that was the case then things like climate science, atmospheric science and meteorology would be unable to exist in the first place.
- knzhou 7y agoOnce again, the "superdeterminism" promoted here is a very very very very very different thing from either ordinary determinism or ordinary probability. You're like the 50th person to reply to me in exactly this way.